Old trees, new trees--is there any progress?

The amount of comparative data for phylogenetic analyses is constantly increasing. Data come from different directions such as morphology, molecular genetics, developmental biology and paleontology. With the increasing diversity of data and of analytical tools, the number of competing hypotheses on phylogenetic relationships rises, too. The choice of the phylogenetic tree as a basis for the interpretation of new data is important, because different trees will support different evolutionary interpretations of the data investigated. I argue here that, although many problematic aspects exist, there are several phylogenetic relationships that are supported by the majority of analyses and may be regarded as something like a robust backbone. This accounts, for example, for the monophyly of Metazoa, Bilateria, Deuterostomia, Protostomia (= Gastroneuralia), Gnathifera, Spiralia, Trochozoa and Arthropoda and probably also for the branching order of diploblastic taxa ("Porifera", Trichoplax adhaerens, Cnidaria and Ctenophora). Along this "backbone", there are several problematic regions, where either monophyly is questionable and/or where taxa "rotate" in narrow regions of the tree. This is illustrated exemplified by the probable paraphyly of Porifera and the phylogenetic relationships of basal spiralian taxa. Two problems span wider regions of the tree: the position of Arthropoda either as the sister taxon of Annelida (= Articulata) or of Cycloneuralia (= Ecdysozoa) and the position of tentaculate taxa either as sister taxa of Deuterostomia (= Radialia) or within the taxon Spiralia. The backbone makes it possible to develop a basic understanding of the evolution of genes, molecules and structures in metazoan animals.